Intel performance and Intel vs. AMD
Barry Watzman
between 3 and 5 GHz (I might well have said between 4 and 5 GHz, I don't
remember and don't have the messages). I was ridiculed for these
comments by several on this board, a number of whom said that Intel
wouldn't be at 2.5 GHz by then.
NOW HEAR THIS: Intel demonstrated an air-cooled FIVE GHz P4 at IDF THIS
WEEK, and INTEL THEMSELVES said that they were going to TEN GHz within
THREE years.
You can recognize it or not, but AMD is screwed. We can argue about
"performance per clock", but, ironically, AMD is right that clock speed
doesn't matter, only performance does (they are wrong, however, that the
P4 doesn't perform. Once you accept that performance per clock doesn't
matter, you then have to "define" performance, and AMD's conclusions
about performance are only accurate in the context of AMD's definition
of performance, e.g. "old-code" desktop applications. But Intel's clock
speed lead will soon be GHz, at which point the P4 will win
OVERWHELMINGLY by ANY definition of performance. Not to mention that as
time goes on, more and more software products (including Windows itself)
will ship with code that is "P4 aware").
Now the AMD boosters are going to argue that AMD will run up their clock
speed also, and certainly that's true -- up to a point. But AMD has put
themselves into a position in which they not only won't win, they won't
even be able to stay competitive for too much longer. The problems for
AMD are:
1. While many people still fail to recognize it, Intel's P4
architecture was not dumb, it was brilliant. That type of architecture
was necessary to get the scalability necessary to get to the clock
speeds that Intel is headed to, Intel saw that and acted, AMD either
didn't see it or didn't act, but in either case, over the next 3 years
they are going to pay the [huge] price. The Athlon core (and the P3
core, for that matter) simply were not scalable to these kinds of
speeds. And, by the way, not withstanding what happens over the next
six months with SDRAM and DDR at CPU speeds in the 1.5 to 2.5 GHz space,
Rambus RDRAM memory is one of the absolutely necessary components when
you start talking about CPU speeds between 3 and 10 GHz.
2. AMD is VERY far behind Intel in converting to advanced fabrication
geometries (.13 micron, for example). Part of the problem is technical,
but, honestly, as much of it or more is financial. AMD has a history of
years and years of losses, they were profitable for a year while Athlon
gave them their first really superior product, but now they are going
back to a loss positon. They just don't have the billions and billions
of dollars that will be required to keep up with Intel.
So while many of you deride Intel, the P4 and Rambus, don't pile the
crow on too heavily, because it won't be too long before you are eating
it.
BGanger109
>geometries (.13 micron, for example).
Rumor is they are ALREADY there - false hope on your part I think - .13 miocron
adn SOI with at least one chipset maker taking up hypertransport....
>So while many of you deride Intel, the P4 and Rambus, don't pile the
>crow on too heavily, because it won't be too long before you are eating
>it.
You better hope not - back to $1000.00 CPU's. AMD will be fine - Intel shows
no signs of slowing their recent miscues adn RAMBUs may not make it to faster
CPU speeds.....
-------------------------------------
Brian
CylonRed on OnlineRacing.net
Pete Ulrich
"Barry Watzman" <Wat...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3B8D9842...@neo.rr.com...
> About 6 months ago, I posted that by 12/31/02 Intel would have P4's
> between 3 and 5 GHz (I might well have said between 4 and 5 GHz, I don't
> remember and don't have the messages). I was ridiculed for these
> comments by several on this board, a number of whom said that Intel
> wouldn't be at 2.5 GHz by then.
>
> NOW HEAR THIS: Intel demonstrated an air-cooled FIVE GHz P4 at IDF THIS
> WEEK, and INTEL THEMSELVES said that they were going to TEN GHz within
> THREE years.
>
right! In a world where most folks think mhz is everything, Intel will
certainly take the lead......at least for now.
Derek
though. Right now, intel's fastest chip is their prized p4 2ghz, which the
amd 1.5ghz matches. My amd athlon 1ghz blows away a p4 1.4ghz. Funny, huh?
Don't deny it... no im not a mac fan) And I highly doubt that intel would
create a 5ghz "Pentium 4" processor. They usually have a different number
for every level of mhz (1000 mhz p3's stopped, p4's came out, etc.). Intel
has been doing beta cpu testing for a while now. I remember back in the
200mhz days (around '97) they had been testing an 800mhz chip (a friend of
mine was a betatester). Then last year, my friend told me he was beta
testing a 2ghz intel cpu, but the average at that time was 1ghz. The point
is intel is always ahead of the game, as is AMD. If you think AMD isn't
testing some outrageous speed processor at the moment, you need to do more
research.
The manufacturers create a high speed CPU, then over time, it goes down
and down the line (as a newer high speed cpu would be engineered during this
process), being perfected, until it passes, which then gets marketed. I
think even Intel knows the whole P4 Line is crap. I could make a better
processor with glue and some popsickle sticks.
Oh yeah, and you're also not very smart if you think AMD is going to
die. AMD is giving intel a run for their money. Stop trying to justify
your wasting money on Intel products by saying "they're better". Both
companies are neck and neck.
"Barry Watzman" <Wat...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3B8D9842...@neo.rr.com...
Matt
> between 3 and 5 GHz (I might well have said between 4 and 5 GHz, I don't
> remember and don't have the messages). I was ridiculed for these
> comments by several on this board, a number of whom said that Intel
> wouldn't be at 2.5 GHz by then.
Their current roadmap still has them at 2.4Ghz next summer. At that rate, I
seriously doubt they will have a 3Ghz out before the end of the year. I bet 3Ghz
isnt released until some time near the end of the first half of 2003.
> NOW HEAR THIS: Intel demonstrated an air-cooled FIVE GHz P4 at IDF THIS
> WEEK, and INTEL THEMSELVES said that they were going to TEN GHz within
> THREE years.
Intel demonstrated a Northwood P4 running at 3Ghz with _supercooling_. (it actually
got up to 3.5Ghz, but the demos were run at 3Ghz). Who the hell told you Intel had
a P4 running at 5Ghz?
Yeah, they could probably make it to 10Ghz within 3 years pretty easily if they use
the same design concept behind the current P4. Maybe they will increase the
pipeline to 40 stages and get there even faster!
> Now the AMD boosters are going to argue that AMD will run up their clock
> speed also, and certainly that's true -- up to a point. But AMD has put
> themselves into a position in which they not only won't win, they won't
> even be able to stay competitive for too much longer. The problems for
> AMD are:
>
> 1. While many people still fail to recognize it, Intel's P4
> architecture was not dumb, it was brilliant. Rambus RDRAM memory is one of the
absolutely necessary components when
> you start talking about CPU speeds between 3 and 10 GHz.
Oh boy.. Clock speed isn't everything. The P4 architecture is brilliant for a
company trying to sell their CPUs to people like you. The chips are a hell of a lot
easier to market when people just look at the clock speed.
Rambus has little to do with being able to run between 3 and 10Ghz. Intel just
doesnt want to admit that after spending all this time doing nothing but saying
RDRAM is the only way.
> 2. AMD is VERY far behind Intel in converting to advanced fabrication
> geometries (.13 micron, for example).
AMD already has .13 capability and the new SOI technology to go with it. They will
be sampling Thoroughbred processors next quarter.
JonnyCabŽ
themselves into newsgroups when things aren't going right for Intel. Your
post sounds like a Buick salesman telling a gullible buyer that they're
"miles ahead in insurance savings, gas savings, resale value, and
prestige"...
2) If you think Rambus is alive and well, you're dead wrong. Losing
lawsuits and losing out to the upcoming 845 chipset will probably put Rambus
in the tank for good. And while the 845 will support PC133 initially, it
won't initially support DDR like the VIA, AMD, and ALi chipsets, which puts
*Intel* into the hole. So sorry. If it stays alive, Rambus will own
nothing more than a teeny niche market. It followed the Intel game of the
need for immediate greedgreedGREED, and it *lost*. (Adding DDR to the 845
is another example of Intel's recent game of
800-series-hurry-up-and-patch-it-on-the-fly. What will the DDR-band-aided
845 be called, the 845SuperDDRFastFastFast+++? <snicker>)
3) If you think AMD is sitting still simply because you only know what's
going on at Intel, your gullibility can be measured in metric tons.
4) You obviously haven't noticed, but the PC market of 2001 is becoming the
VCR market of the 90s. When VCRs were hot, everyone had to have the latest
and greatest, from digital effects to SuperVHS, and they ran all the way up
to $1000. Now VCRs with four heads, HiFi, flying erase heads, and universal
remotes, all for $89 at TrashMart, and nobody cares about SuperVHS. If
Intel is going to blow wads of money on huge development just because of
Andy Grove's lingering hatred of AMD, it may blow up in their faces when
nobody wants or cares about another processor that doesn't show any real
improvement in the speed of programs people use every day. The server
market and the high-end graphics machines are the only machines that will
really benefit from architecture improvements, but the mass market will
simply look at PCs the way we now look at VCRs---everyone has one, and who
cares? The average buyer will look at a PC as another disposable appliance
that's available even at Walgreen's, right next to the Dippity-Doo Sports
Gel, watermelon bubble gum, and Hollywood Super Secret Diet Drink.
I still laugh when I think of Intel's attempt to tell the world that the
P!!! will "make the internet faster", just so the average housewife with a
28.8 modem will run out to the store and buy a P!!! thinking that her
internet pages will suddenly BLAST onto the screen. Fool them once, ...
> NOW HEAR THIS: Intel demonstrated an air-cooled FIVE GHz P4 at IDF THIS
> WEEK, and INTEL THEMSELVES said that they were going to TEN GHz within
> THREE years.
<snicker> WOW! NOW HEAR THIS!!! <lol> You're right; nobody else is
demonstrating faster machines.
Sit back down in your cube at Intel so you can catch your breath and mumble
to yourself about how much you *hate* AMD. <snicker>
Kid Cotton
it's pushin' 4mhz
Moon Buggy
Barry Watzman <Wat...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3B8D9842...@neo.rr.com>...
> About 6 months ago, I posted that by 12/31/02 Intel would have P4's
> between 3 and 5 GHz (I might well have said between 4 and 5 GHz, I don't
> remember and don't have the messages). I was ridiculed for these
> comments by several on this board, a number of whom said that Intel
> wouldn't be at 2.5 GHz by then.
I'm one of them....but I've missed read your date thinking of it as
12/31/01 not 2002. Sorry my bad...
Now let go down to business...
>
> NOW HEAR THIS: Intel demonstrated an air-cooled FIVE GHz P4 at IDF THIS
> WEEK, and INTEL THEMSELVES said that they were going to TEN GHz within
> THREE years.
FYI its not "air-cooled" that was demonstrated in the IDF it a special
cooling method. What ever that is.
Nothing new here...Athlon 1.4 AXIA can do 2.0Ghz on Kryo Technology.
Currently, unless you play only "Q3A", the minimal performance
increase the P4 offers over the Athlon isn't worth that $300 price
tag.....it's not even worth a $50 price tag. I honestly think it's
Intel that is getting desperate. They have release a lazy processor
that is so inefficient, they have to knock it 600 more Mhz just to
compete with their opponents part.
>
> You can recognize it or not, but AMD is screwed. We can argue about
> "performance per clock", but, ironically, AMD is right that clock speed
> doesn't matter, only performance does (they are wrong, however, that the
> P4 doesn't perform. Once you accept that performance per clock doesn't
> matter, you then have to "define" performance, and AMD's conclusions
> about performance are only accurate in the context of AMD's definition
> of performance, e.g. "old-code" desktop applications. But Intel's clock
> speed lead will soon be GHz, at which point the P4 will win
> OVERWHELMINGLY by ANY definition of performance. Not to mention that as
> time goes on, more and more software products (including Windows itself)
> will ship with code that is "P4 aware").
Your definition of "performance" sickens me....after having "25 years
of experience & as a computer engineer"....is that how you "define"
performance?
Speed is based on the number of cycles the processor completes each
second (Hz=cycles per second). The way Intel designed the P4 series
processors is for them ramp up the Hz, but they forgot to ramp up
"performance". Their strategy with P4 is to ramp up the "speed" so the
slow (per cycle) performance of the P4 is adjusted for.
This is very evident on Anandtech Benchmark of P4 2.0Ghz vs Athlon
1.4Ghz even if P4 has more than 600Mhz and the ALU is running 4Ghz,
both are neck & neck in performance/throughput. Even if P4 ramp to
5Ghz it will not matter if a 3.0Ghz AMD Throughbread beat it.
What good is a 2 GHz processor, if its throuput is slower than a 1.5
GHz one? Simple, because people like Barry Watzman who don't realize
that more MHz (or GHz) doesn't equal better performance.
The only way Intel is gonna move these chips is in the craptacular
prebuilt system like Dell, Compaq and HP. Fortunately for them, this
is the route that most people take.. and since an average Rick thinks
that 2.0ghz MUST be better than 1.4Ghz he'll buy them and think he's
getting the best deal.
These people make up the general public (not you Barry...I know your a
techie but very biased), who don't study computers to the level
techies do.
One thing that Intel is good at is Marketing Hype.
>
> Now the AMD boosters are going to argue that AMD will run up their clock
> speed also, and certainly that's true -- up to a point. But AMD has put
> themselves into a position in which they not only won't win, they won't
> even be able to stay competitive for too much longer. The problems for
> AMD are:
>
> 1. While many people still fail to recognize it, Intel's P4
> architecture was not dumb, it was brilliant. That type of architecture
The achitecture is "not" dumb but "not" brilliant either.
What is so "brilliant" about P4 Architecture....if it takes longer for
a CPU to do calculations. It seems that a longer pipeline, although
it allows a CPU to reach higher frequencies on one hand, is also
slowing it down on the other hand. So there is no real benefit to go
with a longer Pipe. And that is brilliant?
Comparing GTL Bus vs EV6 Bus, EV6 Bus has an edge because of Point to
Point Topology. All AMD needs now (since their processor is very
cheap) they can produce SMP Chipset. I can't imagine a dual Morgan
Processor running 200/400Mhz DDR @ 1.5Ghz can beat a single P4 3.0Ghz
for same price. You can argue that 2 CPU can't compete with 1 CPU
then buy a dual XEON P4...let see how it yields on Price & Performance
Ratio.
> was necessary to get the scalability necessary to get to the clock
> speeds that Intel is headed to, Intel saw that and acted, AMD either
> didn't see it or didn't act, but in either case, over the next 3 years
> they are going to pay the [huge] price. The Athlon core (and the P3
> core, for that matter) simply were not scalable to these kinds of
> speeds. And, by the way, not withstanding what happens over the next
> six months with SDRAM and DDR at CPU speeds in the 1.5 to 2.5 GHz space,
> Rambus RDRAM memory is one of the absolutely necessary components when
> you start talking about CPU speeds between 3 and 10 GHz.
See above my response about "performance" There are other I/O that
need to be defined other than DRAM. Thats why Hyper Transport is
coming in and Intel version of PCI 3.0. ATA 133 & Intels Serial I/O
Hubs.
>
> 2. AMD is VERY far behind Intel in converting to advanced fabrication
> geometries (.13 micron, for example). Part of the problem is technical,
> but, honestly, as much of it or more is financial. AMD has a history of
> years and years of losses, they were profitable for a year while Athlon
> gave them their first really superior product, but now they are going
> back to a loss positon. They just don't have the billions and billions
> of dollars that will be required to keep up with Intel.
FYI....Dresden has using technology on .13um and copper technology.
Intel .13um will ramp in November. AMD .13um will come Q1 2002 while
SOI is Q2 2002.
andrew
Derek <optic...@mminternet.com> writes
> They usually have a different number
>for every level of mhz (1000 mhz p3's stopped, p4's came out, etc.).
Dabs.com are advertising 1.2GHz P3s (and 1.1GHz Celerons, which I didn't
know were on the market!)
> I
>think even Intel knows the whole P4 Line is crap. I could make a better
>processor with glue and some popsickle sticks.
100 bucks to the first person to make a processor from glue and
popsickle sticks that can beat a P4 ;-)
>AMD is giving intel a run for their money. Stop trying to justify
>your wasting money on Intel products by saying "they're better". Both
>companies are neck and neck.
Intel and AMD have their own niche markets. AMD chips are by far the
better gaming chips, but for office applications, Intel still have the
lead (though not as big as AMDs lead in gaming). You pays your money,
you takes your choice, depending on what you are going to use it for.
Personally, I use it more in office type apps so I've got a P3 (650
overclocked to 936).
Besides, the problem Intel and AMD are going to run into is apathy from
the general public. Why would the average home user need a P4-2GHz? My
sub-1GHz machine is more than quick enough for any current application
from M$ that I throw at it (it really rocks in Linux). Yes, M$ will
build more bloatware that will need a faster processor, but I don't
think even M$ could bloat their software fast enough to keep up with the
latest processor speeds (though they do try!). Even when manipulating
large scanned images, the sub-1GHz machine is fine, though the 384Mb RAM
installed is probably more important than outright processor speed.
These days, considering the price of RAM, upgrading your memory is a far
more cost effective upgrade than throwing loads or money at Intel or
AMD.
Andrew
abbie
> really benefit from architecture improvements, but the mass market will
> simply look at PCs the way we now look at VCRs---everyone has one, and who
> cares? The average buyer will look at a PC as another disposable appliance
> that's available even at Walgreen's, right next to the Dippity-Doo Sports
> Gel, watermelon bubble gum, and Hollywood Super Secret Diet Drink.
you obviously are totally clueless, my walgreen has been out of stock of Dippity-Doo Sports
gel for over a month !!
Michael-NC
"andrew" <and...@gi0nwg.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jV6B8JAC...@gi0nwg.freeserve.co.uk...
> In article <YVhj7.5289$aC1.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Derek <optic...@mminternet.com> writes
> > They usually have a different number
> >for every level of mhz (1000 mhz p3's stopped, p4's came out, etc.).
>
> Dabs.com are advertising 1.2GHz P3s (and 1.1GHz Celerons, which I didn't
> know were on the market!)
>
> > I
> >think even Intel knows the whole P4 Line is crap. I could make a better
> >processor with glue and some popsickle sticks.
>
> 100 bucks to the first person to make a processor from glue and
> popsickle sticks that can beat a P4 ;-)
>
> >AMD is giving intel a run for their money. Stop trying to justify
> >your wasting money on Intel products by saying "they're better". Both
> >companies are neck and neck.
>
> Intel and AMD have their own niche markets. AMD chips are by far the
> better gaming chips, but for office applications, Intel still have the
> lead (though not as big as AMDs lead in gaming). You pays your money,
> you takes your choice, depending on what you are going to use it for.
> Personally, I use it more in office type apps so I've got a P3 (650
> overclocked to 936).
Errr, you've got that wrong. AMD whups the P4s ass and eats it's lunch in office/productivity
benchmarks. Come to think of it, the AMD also trounces the P4 in most gaming benches too.
Timothy J. Lee
andrew <and...@gi0nwg.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Intel and AMD have their own niche markets. AMD chips are by far the
>better gaming chips, but for office applications, Intel still have the
>lead (though not as big as AMDs lead in gaming).
Isn't it the case that the processor speed of any currently sold processor
is largely irrelevant for most "office" applications (email, word processing,
some spreadsheet)?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
andrew
<remo...@sonic.net> writes
>In article <jV6B8JAC...@gi0nwg.freeserve.co.uk>,
>andrew <and...@gi0nwg.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>Intel and AMD have their own niche markets. AMD chips are by far the
>>better gaming chips, but for office applications, Intel still have the
>>lead (though not as big as AMDs lead in gaming).
>
>Isn't it the case that the processor speed of any currently sold processor
>is largely irrelevant for most "office" applications (email, word processing,
>some spreadsheet)?
Without a doubt. The vast majority of office applications do not need
the latest processor. A 600MHz is more than fast enough for any of
that, assuming a sensible amount of RAM is installed (I specify 128Mb as
a bare minimum, preferably 256Mb due to the low cost). That said, I
have a Word document that takes between 5 and 10 minutes to finish
loading on my P3-650@936 with 384Mb RAM! Admittedly it has a couple of
thousand pages and loads of graphics etc. That is a fairly extreme case
though.
Another place where a faster processor is useful (though again, RAM is
more important) is in DTP and CAD, though again, a P3@936 feels quite
sufficient for that. Why anyone would want a P4-2GHz is beyond me!
Andrew
Barry Watzman
over the Athlon isn't worth that $300 price
tag....."
Buggy, if you thought that that post of mine was in any way about "currently", then you missed
the point completely.
Rick
you that were pushing the megahertz up here a year ago. Speed was real
important then to you guys, when, ha, ha, Intel was having problems breaking
the 1 gig barrier.
But alas the P4. Now speed isn't important. The logic escapes me. It's
performance as measured by obsolete benchmark program that really don't
measure squat when we are discussing new technology.
Then, I remember your position on the quad layered P4. The big bullshit
story you guys were generating was that with four layers of chip you had
greater " missed branch predictions". Remember your line of horse manure
you were handing out on this board. I sure do.
But oh no! Intel had come up with new circuitry that completely reduced the
missed branch prediction garbage that you were spewing. Missed branch
predictions, another AMD myth.
Now, Intel is talking 4 and 5 gigahertz Cpu's as I remember predicting on
this board only to be scoffed at. I also remember saying that you can't
measure the performance of the P4 on benchmark software that wasn't meant to
look at the P4. More ridicule.
I also remember writing up here that rambus memory at 400 mhz was really
going to push the video along and open new doors for new applications.
Again DDR ram was better. Shoot, your logic escapes me. Those terrible
Rambus troublemakers.
I also predicted up here that AMD stock would drop to ten. The day it
dropped from 30 to 20 I posted that the stock is on its way to ten. It hit
13 today. The company has lost two thirds of its market cap in the past
several months from 33 to 13. By next quarter they will be in deep shit,
by 2nd quarter of 2002, they will be making deep cuts and have a ton of read
ink on their balance sheet. Still love AMD? Don't mortgage the farm to
support this pig.
"Moon Buggy" <back...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40d347.010830...@posting.google.com...
Rick
shortsightedness really makes you wonder, doesn't it? Any play that AMD
has had is over, IBM has dropped them and now, with the P4 ramping up for
full production their marketshare will be confined to those few diehards
that refuse to change with the new technology. First the ridicule, then the
denial and bewilderment then the acceptance of the inevitable. AMD is
hurting, 2/3 of their marketcap has gone down the toilet and with declining
sales, AMD will have to cutback and retrench dramatically. Stock should hit
ten shortly. It was trading at 13 today.
"Barry Watzman" <Wat...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3B8ED761...@neo.rr.com...
Matt
are delusional.
"Rick" <@()albert...@954ACCESS.NET> wrote in message
news:IgCj7.204290$rV6.9...@e420r-atl2.usenetserver.com...
JD
Joe Gallagher
That's harsh.
"Rick" <@()albert...@954ACCESS.NET> wrote in message
news:HABj7.204189$rV6.9...@e420r-atl2.usenetserver.com...
Denny Salatino
wrote:
>which is better vanilla or chocolate? these threads SUCK!
*************
Your right, I have both Intel and AMD rigs here and will take AMD over
Intel any day! and not just because of the price either.
Denny.
************
JD
"Denny Salatino" <salat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b8fabce...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Rick
for to long up here.
Speed no, longer matters?? It meant everything six months ago. Now with
Intel out there with 2.0 gig's, speed doesn't matter. Then AMD why would
you want to catch up?
Why AMD are you trying so hard to regain the speed crown that you lost?
(Rhetorical)
Oh, wait! We aren't selling speed now, (having clearly lost that battle) we
are selling performance. That's AMD's new mantra. PERFORMANCE. Look at our
1.4 gig (on some old garbage benchmark program, that measures nothing by
today's standards), and then tell me if we are as good as Intel, who keeps
lowering their CPU prices until the AMD's blood flows.
By the time Intel is finished, you will be ashamed to say you have an AMD
system. Not today yet, but look out there a ways. The Myopia will kill
you!
"Joe Gallagher" <gal...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9mnq54$ogc$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
Michael-NC
"Rick" <@()albert...@954ACCESS.NET> wrote in message
news:PSQj7.208029$rV6.10...@e420r-atl2.usenetserver.com...
Rick
you be when Intel is out there with their P4 - 3 gig, so I can recommend a
good anti depressant for you? I can then say cheer up there is an Intel 3.5
gig right behind it. Intel is on it's way to ten.
You heard it hear first when I said AMD is on its way to twenty, now the
number is ten.
Don't bet the farm on this pig. AMD is hurting! Their stock is being
crushed.
"Michael-NC" <NoAd...@Desolate.Com> wrote in message
news:h4Rj7.201253$TM5.37...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Michael-NC
"Rick" <@()albert...@954ACCESS.NET> wrote in message
news:eERj7.96201$54.47...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> Michael, Thank you for worrying about my prescription refills. Where will
> you be when Intel is out there with their P4 - 3 gig, so I can recommend a
> good anti depressant for you? I can then say cheer up there is an Intel 3.5
> gig right behind it. Intel is on it's way to ten.
> You heard it hear first when I said AMD is on its way to twenty, now the
> number is ten.
> Don't bet the farm on this pig. AMD is hurting! Their stock is being
> crushed.
As opposed to Intel's stock which is rocketing skywards!
FWIW, I've always stayed on the trailing edge by necessity. That's to AMD and my own blitzkrieg
assault on my credit card, I'm able to afford a 1.2GHz DDR product and be on the cutting edge
for a change. Hell, I remember when those 233MMx chips were 600 bucks ***shudder***
I don't want to go back to dem days.
Viva AMD!!!
JonnyCabŽ
Dippity-Doo Sports
> gel for over a month !!
Yeah, I know. I meant to say that the $33 Intel disposable 10GHz machine
would be located next to the roach bombs and $3 soothing-sound clock radios.
<lol>
JonnyCabŽ
Intel evangelism, heavy investment in Intel, or (most likely) ceaseless
brand loyalty with no open mind.
You're always talking about "other people not seeing it." Apparently, you
"see" only one side of the story as well. And if you really believe that
AMD is just sitting still right now, you're not "seeing" anything but your
own straight-jacketed *obsession*.
NOW HEAR THIS!!! <Scooby-Doo snicker> I agree---get the prescription
refilled.
Cappy
dog in one bite! So there.
"JonnyCabŽ" <shut...@localnetnospam.com> wrote in message
news:tp05lbj...@corp.supernews.com...
JonnyCabŽ
still runs slower than yours with the same amount of food. And my dog will
reach 10MPH by the end of two years, according to my dog.
<lol>
mlan...@mediaone.net
beat up your dad" but I feel compelled to dispense with a few words of
wisdom. But first, know that I skate on both sides of the street, and
use not only AMD and Intel... but I'm also using SGIs with ancient
<G> but very serviceable RISC processors.
And as a designer who runs Corel, Photoshop, PhotoImpact, VISIO,
Premiere, and other intense graphics programs 9-5 every day... I can
only say that faster _IS_ better. I'm about to build a new graphics
workstation, and I'll probably use AMD's Palomino only because I work
on a budget/performance basis. But I might look into Intel... so I
just want to say that I'm open-minded at least.
Anyway, Intel followers on Prozac should be thanking AMD and kissing
their feet because unlike the mess that CYRIX made, AMD actually
helped drive the Intel prices down and the performance parameters up.
If AMD never existed, most Intel users would be sitting around fat and
happy with PII's rebadged as whatever, and running a breakneck speed
of maybe 500 MHz. It's the truth, admit it, and if AMD does falter in
2002... well, hasta la vista baby, it was fun while it lasted.
Personally... like Yogi Berra, I don't think it's over until its over.
CaptMike
Derek Hawkins
Why anyone would want to overclock a P3-650 to 936Mhz is beyond me.
andrew
<eld...@msn.com> writes
Let's see.... 44% more performance for zero more cost. Why not?
Andrew
vplite
the future of Intel and AMD than mine, so I can only speak from
personal experience.
In today's market, for the average user, AMD's 1.4 Ghz Thunderbird
along with the required motherboard and DDR memory is a better value
than Intel's P4 with MB and RAMBUS memory. I am speaking from my
personal first hand experience, having owned both (and returning my P4
1300 with 256 Meg Rambus memory to Dell).
I was strongly prejudiced toward Intel, but I feel they have made a
major mistake with their P4 roadmap. This is amazing, since Intel is
30X the size of AMD.
In favor of Intel, the P4 uses less (I've read half as much) energy,
and therefore runs cooler and the system is quieter, since less
cooling power is needed. I'll pay the extra $20 or so per year in
electricity, and put up with a little more fan noise, for the
remarkable difference in CPU power. My AMD system just runs noticably
faster in the day to day applications I use, Office and surfing.
I personally believe, and I have no evidence to back this up except
what I'm about to state, that CPU speed is mainly an advertising
gimmick. I have overclocked my Thunderbird to 1.575, and underclocked
it to 975, and could notice no difference in peformance.
So what if a CPU runs at 5 Ghz? It's still going to be waiting on the
rest of the system.
Ed Stepans
from what I've seen of the more sophisticated performance tests, AMD
performs better than Intel at every price level, regardless of the "speed"
of the CPU (which is in fact fairly irrelevant because of the various other
factors affecting real-world performance).
However, I am baffled by your rabid Intel cheer-leading. Intel has been
ruthlessly trying to wipe out all real competition for years now, and if
they succeed, do you think there will be any sort of benefit for us? The
Athlon chip has been an incredible boon for the computer market, because it
gave us an alternative to Intel. (Gee, just imagine; a world run on RAMBUS
memory; wouldn't that be just wonderful?)
"Rick" <@()albert...@954ACCESS.NET> wrote in message
news:PSQj7.208029$rV6.10...@e420r-atl2.usenetserver.com...
Matt
You will have to excuse Rick, he is obviously brainwashed. He is under the
impression the bigger number before the "Ghz" part means the P4 is automatically
better. He also likes to believe the speed race we are used to seeing with
conventional CPUs somehow applies to the P4. He doesnt understand the P4 isnt like
the P3 nor does he understand real world performance figures.
From the looks of it, i'd say the marketing dept. got him.
"Ed Stepans" <dialup-ac...@dialup-accounts.com> wrote in message
news:9ntfeb$vha$1...@news.chatlink.com...